PATNA, India, Sept. 9 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 11:

Re:- I.A. No. 01 of 2023 For the reasons stated in the Interlocutory Application, it is allowed.

2. Registry is directed to make necessary changes. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):-

"I. For issuance of a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent Bank to open the seal of the only dwelling house of the Petitioner and allow them to occupy the said residential premises

II. Issue a Direction/ order setting aside the Respondent's action of taking physical possession of the petitioner's only dwelling house and other valuable items lying in the said premises and restore the physical possession of the immovable property in question to the petitioner.

III. For issuance of a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS allowing the present petition and call for the relevant records and proceedings in respect of the Sale Notice dated 14.09.2022 issued by the Respondent Bank to the petitioner under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 read with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, wherein immovable property bearing Khata No.- 113, Khesra No.- 165, Area-04 Decimal, situated at Rasoolpur Sayed Salem, PSAhiyapur, Thana No.- 662, Anchal- Mushari, District- Muzaffarpur has been e-auctioned.

IV. For issuance of direction to the Respondent Bank to consider the proposal of the petitioner for immediate payment of 25% of the sale amount in lieu of unlocking the premises."

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent bank without following the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India or loan standard operating procedures have put the loan account of the petitioner under the NPA thereafter the authorities have taken action under the SARFAESI proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the subsequent action of the respondent bank after putting the loan account of the petitioner in NPA are bad and therefore liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has relied on the following judgments to buttress his case:

(i) (1977) 2 Supreme Court Cases 724 (STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS vs. M/s. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD.)

(ii) (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 482 (UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER)

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTY4ODIjMjAyMiMxI04=-lyM3LZ4essk=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.